UNDER TRUMP, U.S. MILITARY HAS ALLEGEDLY KILLED OVER 1,000 CIVILIANS IN IRAQ, SYRIA IN MARCH

QUOTE: U.S.-led coalition airstrikes in Iraq and Syria may have already killed 1,484 civilians in just Iraq and Syria this month alone, more than three times the number killed in President Barack Obama’s final full month in office

No? He wasn’t saddened and angered by those reports?

Oh, wait. It was an unconfirmed allegation of a chemical attack supposedly committed by Syrian President Bashar Assad, even though Assad had no motivation whatsoever for such an attack and there was no evidence to indict Assad. Indeed, following the bombing of a terrorist nest in the area in question, a Russian team discovered a lab in which terrorists had been preparing chemical weapons.

This ties in with a report that chemical weapons were used in Mosul, where the US was bombing. Oddly, that report got little press and no one in the world accused the US or its allies of facilitating the chemical attacks.

Despite the Russian report of this evidence of terrorist involvement in the chemical attack in Syria, no media outlet in the West was interested in the report. Almost in unison, the Western press condemned Assad, thereby clearing the path for Trump’s attack using WMDs known as Tomahawk missiles, which took the lives of heroic ISIS-fighting Syrian pilots, leaving precious children fatherless.

It is important to note that world leaders had called for an investigation into the allegations against Assad, as reported here.

Now a call for an investigation indicates that there is no unanimity as to the cause and perpetrators. Right? And a retaliatory action for something that is clearly not sufficiently investigated is rash and uncalled for, at least if we are to consider ourselves civilized.

Just think. Suppose a witness in court claimed he heard someone say a defendant killed someone. And the judge, before cross examination of the witnesses, before hearing the defendant and his lawyer, before hearing the forensic expert, immediately sentences the defendant to death for murder, even though the suspect had no motive for the murder and there was credible testimony to the effect that someone else who had a motive committed the crime. And this judge, when asked by reporters after the trial why he had not allowed the defendant to defend himself, replied: “I was afraid he’d get away with it. What would that have done to my reputation?”

This absurdity is essentially what his Honor judge Donald J. Trump did on Thursday April 6, 2017, sending 59 weapons of mass destruction to attack an air base in Syria from which heroic pilots and Russian advisors had been flying sorties against terrorists for over a year, risking their lives for the Syrian people and to rid the world of the scourges of civilization called ISIS, and Al-Qaeda and its metamorphoses – groups that Trump himself claimed to oppose. Because Judge Trump, based on no evidence but the opinion of US intel agencies that had falsely condemned him no less, based on false allegations, of being a Russian spy. Now tell me, Folks, did he really believe this intel or was this attack on the sovereign Syrian people something that he had planned perhaps during his campaign, even as he promised us he would not intervene in the Middle East?

Just how intelligent is our intel? Well, some years ago, someone “disappeared” trillions of dollars at the Pentagon, and our brilliant sleuths have not yet identified this person or group and no one can find the money. Yet, a few minutes after learning of a chemical attack in a region in which terrorists are known to use chemical weapons, these same leadersknow who committed the attack and it was not the terrorists.

It smells of GW Bush, and back on December 1 of last year, I warned you here of what I suspected was about to come.

Here’s the thing: Trump is a gambling man (after all, he used to build casinos). He gambled on you wanting an anti-Obama. But emails from my readers indicate that this is not quite all you wanted and that many of you will now wake up and stop the cheering.

You see, I remember many of my readers endorsing Trump because they figured Hillary was a warmonger but Trump, who had said he could get along with Putin, would bring about peace on earth, and in fact this image of Trump induced a lot of voters to switch affiliations, some because they feared a confrontation with nuclear-armed Russia.

But Trump may have fatally misjudged his voters. After all, what is anti-Obama to some is not anti-Obama to others. Like the stopped clock that tells the correct time twice a day, Obama did not always do the wrong thing. No one does. Now Obama had returned money that belonged to Iran and had been held in escrow in the US. To some, being anti-Obama would be getting tough on Iran. But softness on Iran was not Obama’s big sin. His big sin was failing to lift a pinky to stop ISIS back when that group was invading Syria and Iraq in broad daylight and its long rows of white machine gun-equipped Toyota pickups presented a perfect target. This inaction allowed the terrorists to infiltrate villages and mingle with civilians, enabling the terrorists to hold them hostage in deadly situations. Many voters were hoping Trump would brook no nonsense from ISIS but would cooperate with Russia to take down these terrorists.

But his choice of a Neocon cabinet did not fit this narrative and it cast doubt on his sincerity to fight the Establishment that had done nothing to stop terror.

In fact, Trump as president kept bad mouthing Iran even though Iran was doing a commendable job of fighting ISIS in Syria. He also told AIPAC that he would stand by Israel. Which is fine if all he meant was that he defended Israel’s right to exist and live in peace. But coinciding with this US attack, Israel is now asking for a buffer zone in Syria. Which is odd. Israel already occupies the Syrian Golan Heights. Many keen observers think they are just grabbing more elbow room, which is their MO.

Now if Americans just simply acquiesce to this illegal and irrational action on the part of the man they elected, he will, like Dubya after the Iraq war, most likely simply stay the course, believing that you support him. The most important mission of every American today is to show you do not support this attack, which provides assistance to ISIS. These terrorists are already feeling their oats and taking full advantage of the cover kindly provided by the administration, as described here.

SYRIA: SOMETHING IS NOT ADDING UP IN IDLIB CHEMICAL WEAPONS ATTACK

White Helmets [this group has already been identified as a fake, as detailed here and here] are handling the corpses of people without sufficient safety gear, most particularly with the masks…as well as no gloves… a doctor in a hospital full of victims of sarin gas has the time to tweet and make video calls.

SYRIA: IT’S WMD ALL OVER AGAIN. WHY DON’T YOU SEE IT?
Two points occur. One, the western power, by consorting with such people, demonstrate that their exaggerated disgust at the Assad government is selective and unreal. Two, they demonstrate that our continuing desire to be on good terms with Saudi Arabia lies beneath our whole foreign policy in this region. And which state loathes President Assad more than anyone? Why, Wahhabi Saudi Arabia, which despises Assad for his Alawite heresy, and hates him for his alliance with Shia Iran.

A friend alerted me to a NYT op-ed that is out of keeping with that outlet’s general viewpoint and correctly identifies the source of the problem.

QUOTE: What hardly any Israelis will consider, though, and virtually no influential voices in the West will publicly suggest, is that Israel — not Hezbollah in Lebanon, nor Hamas in Gaza, nor the government of President Bashar al-Assad in Syria — is provoking the next war. Counterintuitive though it may be to Israeli and most Western minds, Israel, not its militant Islamist or brutal Syrian enemies, is the aggressor in these border wars.

I wonder if you will recall that the GW Bush wars were started by rah rah talk, as when Dubbya stood at ground zero and, with his arms draped around two NY firemen, proclaimed “the people who knocked down these buildings are going to hear from us.”

So ask yourself: Did “the people who knocked down these buildings” really hear from us? Now every American who experienced that moment lived through the wars that followed. But remember that the “people who knocked down these buildings” were mostly Saudis because it was they who founded and funded – together with the US Deep State – Al-Qaeda. But instead of declaring war on the Saudis, our real enemy, we attacked the enemies of our enemy, the Taliban (which had around that time plotted to oust the Saudi royals) and Saddam, who ran a secular type government with little or no emphasis on Shariah and even had a Christian in his cabinet. The Saudis hate secular leaders and the US helps them eliminate them. (Here is a clue as to why we are so obliging to them: http://laiglesforum.com/how-the-petrodollar-perpetuates-islamic-terror-2/3315.htm).

Thus, absurdly, Dubbya was aiding and abetting the “people who knocked down these buildings” and killed up to 3000 Americans. And he and his Neocon pals had to know that the Christians and other large groups would leave Iraq in droves if we “won,” and that chaos would ensue, forcing the US to occupy.

And how about that Afghanistan? What a great victory! Rah rah. Not. US and allied troops are still there and the carnage is heart-wrenching – for all but the arms industry and its financiers.

Thus we can state with confidence that, facing the TV cameras at ground zero that day, George W. Bush was thumbing his nose at a bleeding America. (This fits in perfectly with Bush’s cover-up of the Saudi role in 9-11 as reported subsequently by the Washington Post ).

Now with that deception in mind, you will note the unbridled euphoria over the Trump election. Rah rah. Millions of Americans were relieved that we would now have peace.

And in fact, we might.

But we might not either.

Yes, Donald Trump had promised he would cooperate with Russia. The prospect of peace that this signaled is one important reason many Democrats crossed over to vote for him, for example.

But what many of us have forgotten is the eerily similar rah rah moments of the Bush years and what rah rah moments usually mean in our great country. The greatness often lies solely in the rah rah, not in the situation on the ground, in the aftermath, our bleeding hearts and pocket books.

Some exceptionally alert observers are already pointing out that Trump has picked two rank Neocons for his cabinet, who have both warned about “Russian aggression” in Ukraine, despite the fact that it was the US and Europe who started and supported the bloody coup in Kiev for the obvious purpose of goading Russia into a defensive action that could be spun by our media into “aggression.”

Trump’s presumptive defense secretary has warned that the Russian “aggression” in Ukraine is “worse than we think.” This is a lie, as you know if you follow the web site that provides regular sitreps on the conflict in E. Ukraine. Bookmark this site and go there at least once a week. If enough Americans did, our “leaders” would not dare arm the Kiev fascists. Even, if you followed the OSCE’s regular Ukraine reports, you would also know the aggressor is Kiev’s troops (many of which are fascists, eg, the Azov Battalion) that the US government supports.

But Mattis is not the only one beating the war drums against the country Trump promised to “cooperate with.” Mike Pompeo, Trump’s pick for CIA director, recently returned from a trip to Kiev, and after fruitful discussions with the Neo-Nazis there, says that “Putin’s aim is to take over Ukraine” (Mike would have fit in nicely in a Clinton cabinet) , implying that Russia wants to attack Ukraine militarily. If that were true, Putin would have done the job a long time ago before NATO had deployed troops all over Eastern Europe, including 30,000 at the Russian borders (reminding Russians of Hitler’s Operation Barbarossa that destroyed much of Russia and killed millions of Russians). No one is saying that a Ukraine thoroughly disgruntled with US and EU lies, like the false promise to let the country join the EU, might not voluntarily ally itself with Russia. It would be hard to paint that as Russian aggression, but recent anti-Russian (hence racist) drivel from the Western msm shows that no lie is too big for the warmongering elites to manage.

The latest E. Ukraine (Novorossia is the real name) sitrep shows that the Neo-Fascist sympathizers the US government supports in Kiev are now recruiting Lumpenproletariat, common thugs, with promises of free land, stolen from Russian speakers.

Now we are at another crossroads, another rah rah moment in American history. The euphoria over the Trump victory is great. Many are willing to go along with anything this leader wants. Like Bush, the Evangelicals have anointed him as God’s servant. The chessboard is arrayed exactly as before.

The question is: will you forget the lessons that Dubbya taught us and say to yourself: this time is different and the rah rah heralds a better world? Or will you recognize the rah rah moment for what it is: a time for you to say “not this time!”?

Postscript:

Writing for a news and opinion site is an endless job, as it should and must be. Since this was written, Trump is reportedly eyeing shifty arch-Neocon Mitt Romney for the position of Secretary of State.

So what’s wrong with that you ask? Here is a video featuring Mitt saying “Russia is our worst geopolitical foe” who always “lines up with the world’s worst actors”, among whom he counts Assad, the most pro-Christian leader in the Middle East, who is fighting for his country’s life against Al-Qaeda and ISIS, groups that are armed and trained by our “ally” Saudi Arabia.

Trump has said he will cooperate with the same Putin that Romney has spent much of his career smearing.

I have been participating in a discussion of Neoconservatism (Neocons) on the Neocon web site AIM, which expands to Accuracy in Media, a misnomer if there ever was one. On the AIM site (which pretends to oppose Hillary but more effectively opposes Trump, absurdly alleging that he has financial interest in good Russian relations, thereby supporting her candidacy), I had used the discussion forum to alert the readers to my article on Neocons here in response to comments in favor of “Christian” Neocons. I participate in such discussions in part because they point out gaps in my commentaries. One reader understandably thought that I was referring in that article to all levels of the Neocon movement when I said that Neoconservatism is atheistic. I was referring only to the top levels, as I show below. This reader wrote (his comment at AIM is found here):

However, I see your “proof” of what Kinkaid is, is an article you wrote. But I believe you lost your argument in your first sentence. Not one neoconservative I’ve met or talked to was an atheist as you claim they are.

My response to that reader is very important because it clarifies that only the top level Neocons, like Neoconservative “godfather” Irving Kristol, are non-Christians. I had not made this clear enough in my article.

My forum response:

Yes, that was my article. Unlike cowardly Neocons, I use my real name. I am referring to our resident Neocon here [meaning Cliff Kincaid, who has written dishonestly about me in the past, as you can see if you read my comments at this thread—all comments of mine that do not appear in the AIM forum are in brackets, like this one — Don]. You disagree that Neoconservatism is atheistic. You are justified in not understanding this issue. The Upper level Neocons are atheists or at least entertain an atheistic viewpoint, as the article shows. But their trick is deceiving the lower level ones into thinking they are doing God’s work when they support the Neocon policies. That is really the whole point. I was one of those deceived, back when Bush was pushing for his war in Iraq. I foolishly thought he was a godly man who would get God’s full support and lead us to a victory over evil. But a week after we “won,” the Assyrian Christians started leaving Iraq in droves. The outcome was clear evidence of what was intended. [Bush and his planners had to know how this would play out]. The top level Neocons had succeeded. THEY won the war. [Real Americans lost.]

Here are some brief examples of how the upper echelon Neocons control unwary Christians:

Many softheaded Christians believe the Neocon narrative that both gays and Muslims are downtrodden and represent the needy that Jesus said we are to help. Ironically the 2 groups hate each other but the upper level Neocons have, diabolically, controlled the dialogue so that many “Christians” now sympathize with the political activism of both groups.

Why does the upper level do this? Easy: because the political activists of both groups [not necessarily ordinary Muslims and gays] are made to order destroyers of traditional Christianity and the top level Neocons [like Soros] are philosophical descendants of the radical branch of the Enlightenment [such as Voltaire] so they hate Christianity. Soros is at the pinnacle of this top level and he supports both groups. In Europe and the US, he is behind the mass migration movement. His followers in politics have targeted German “Christians” with the message that they must take in millions of downtrodden Muslims [arch-Neocon and atheist Soros’ involvement in the mass migration movement is documented by Breitbart and others]. Merkel is the head of the CDU — Christian Democratic Union — and millions of her supporters are nominal “Christians.” So when she says, under the influence of the Neocon shadow government, that Germany must take in these millions of Muslims, her lukewarm-Christian supporters blindly follow her Diktat. What they [and the vast majority of the Western public] do not realize is that at the top level of the Neocon hierarchy, Soros and his demons are plotting to destroy Christianity by pandering to the Muslims, many of whom are already persecuting Christian refugees. Just received this morning a file documenting how Muslim “refugees” rampantly persecute the Christian refugees. This file is linked at the bottom of this post.

As for the gay agenda, even though many “Christian” activists [like Kincaid] are against gay marriage and the like, many are Neocons, so they have been brainwashed into hating Russia. Here, briefly, are examples of how the top-level Neocons are working to trap these middle level Neocon activists and their followers into working against their own agenda:

By opposing Russia in Syria, these zombie-like lower and middle level Neocon grunts tend to sabotage the fight against ISIS in Syria by influencing Western politicians to oppose Russia [the only world power sincerely and effectively fighting ISIS], eg, by creating a no-fly zone and driving out the Russians [a Neocon policy called for by almost all GOP presidential candidates – Trump being the notable exception – and by Hillary]. After all, they all blindly accept the absurdity that the Russians – who, as you may have noticed, never slash Christian throats – are the no. 1 enemy, and that ISIS is not nearly as significant, even though these terrorists have vowed to wipe Christians off the face of the earth. This foolish anti-Russian rhetoric indirectly, but every effectively, translates into very strong political support for ISIS, which is working, in tandem with the top level Neocons, to destroy Christianity and civilization itself. [This explains why arch-Neocon John McCain has called for arms and support for Al-Qaeda in Syria – in the belief that Americans will not remember that it was this group that killed 2 to 3 thousand Americans on 9-11, 2001. Some contributors at the discussion of the AIM site support McCain, as one might expect].

Likewise, lower level Neocon pawns indirectly oppose the very effective Russian laws against gay propaganda targeting children, supporting the false narrative that such laws are opposed to free speech per se and are homophobic, [when in fact, they effectively protect children and are an important part of Russia’s policy of counteracting the importation of dangerous propaganda from the corrupt and immoral West [for example, via Soros’ Open Society Foundations]. Note that Kincaid and his fellow Neocons oppose the gay agenda, correctly recognizing that this Western activism is evil, but absurdly insisting that the Russian opposition to it is bad – trying to have it both ways. BTW, Russia has recently banned Soros’ foundations].

In the two ways briefly described above, the lower level Neocons, who imagine themselves to be good Christians, are very effective pawns in the game intended to destroy Christianity. And they don’t even know it.

A British writer who does not like Donald Trump recently expressed publicly:

“Mr Trump’s rallies increasingly attract violence – by his opponents and his supporters.”

In a three-way conversation in which I was included, a mutual friend reminded him that it is not fair to blame a person who is attacked for being attacked. The mutual friend asserted that it is a well-known trick of the left to blame the attackee for being attacked.

The Trump detractor, undeterred, then called Trump a mountebank who made “demagogic outbursts.”

demagogism, demagoguism, demagogy

the art and practice of gaining power and popularity by arousing the emotions,

passions, and prejudices of the people.

It must be noted that in Europe, especially the UK, when someone accuses someone else of being a demagogue, the purpose of the accusation is generally not to adhere to a standard definition of the word but rather to stealthily create an association in the mind of the audience between the person thus impugned and Adolf Hitler. The implication is an appeal to emotion intended to stop the discussion before it can get started – often because the accuser lacks the skill and/or the supporting facts to continue the discussion. That may not have been the case in the above-referenced discussion and I don’t intend to imply that. Note, however, that, particularly in Europe, the accusation of demagoguery is in itself a kind of subtle soft demagoguery because it is intended to evoke emotional images of the last war that caused so much suffering in Europe. Good patriots generally bow reflexively to the person who conjures up this image, no matter how irrelevant it may be. While it is true that Trump, like all the other candidates, appeals to emotion and can thus technically be accused of demagoguery, the content and purpose of Trump’s utterances is the diametric opposite of Hitler’s. In fact, I will go so far as to say that, ironically, the Hitler analogy is more applicable to the Establishments in Europe and the US, which oppose Trump.

In the case of Adolf Hitler, the ultimate goal was war, a racist war that would force Germanism on the rest of the world and even eliminate many non-Germans.

During the GOP debates, almost all of Trump’s opponents expressed the idea that Russia was the number one enemy, on the assumption that the American people would reflexively agree with this assessment, forgetting that Russia had never declared jihad on anyone. Some, like Ohio Governor John Kasich, even went so far as to say that if he were president, he would “punch Russia in the nose.” Ohio Governor Chris Christie said he would also do so if the Russians violated a US-imposed no-fly zone, and Carly Fiorina agreed with both demagogues. Hillary, for her part, has compared Putin with Hitler, and her choice of pro-war cabinet members has led a number of scholars to predict that a Hillary presidency would lead to a nuclear war.

Now why do I call this war rhetoric demagoguery? I do so because it is clear that these Neocon warmongers firmly believe that most Americans are still generally imbued with Cold War fervor. Of course, they are wrong, because if that were true, Donald Trump – who bravely said in his campaign, “I think I can get along with Putin” – would not be as popular as he is. In fact, it is safe to say that Americans are inexorably turning against the Neocons whose whole raison d’être is centered around the kind of senseless war that has caused untold suffering throughout the world for over a half-century. The same rejection of the Establishment is being seen in Europe.

Now the demagoguery of both parties’ elites is almost identical with Hitler’s but is potentially more dangerous because we now are looking at the possibility of a nuclear confrontation, and numerous warnings are being issued by officials in relevant positions such as former generals and foreign ministers, eg, here, here, here, here, and that is barely scratching the surface.

Everywhere in the West, the elites have used nothing less than demagoguery to keep the masses in check. Every time a politician, like Angela Merkel, accuses her opponents of being the “far right,” she is in fact attempting to conjure up images of the Third Reich, when in fact, the EU and Establishment regimes are nothing but an extension of that regime, as ably demonstrated by Rodney Atkinson, for example, in this video, and by our colleague Edward Spalton, eg, here.

Yet the demagogues who want war continue to call the peacemakers demagogues.

But the threadbare ruse can only last until the people see through it, and the time is just about up.

Those identified as supporting the Establishment could soon lose all credibility. The good news: it is not to late to adjust one’s message accordingly.

There is a good chance that those “conservative” sites you read are not actually conservative but instead are Neocon or a combination of Neocon and Libertarian. Let me put it bluntly: Neoconservative is roughly the diametric opposite of conservative, as explained here.

You will remember my article Has WND gone full-bore Neocon?, which shows how WND grotesquely distorted a NYT report on a member of the Russian public who posted, possible in a blog, that Romania could be reduced to a “smoldering ruin” if there were a confrontation between that country and Russia. WND falsely reported that his quote came from a Russian official.

Now you know that first of all, I would never have made such a mistake. But more importantly, if I had, I would have printed a retraction and an apology as soon as I learned of my error. That was how decent journalists behaved back when there was an ounce of decency left in the profession. But you can no longer call it a profession, more of a money grab.

By way of an update, let me tell you that shortly after my article appeared, a reader advised me that WND had removed that article like a thief in the night.

No apology, no retraction, just a surgical removal.

Recently, our friend Julio Severo wrote an article exposing certain Neocons posing as conservatives. He sent it to Free Republic and it is still archived at that site. You can read it here: http://archive.is/Qn6Iq

Julio writes to his readers:

“Friends

I published my article on Cliff Kincaid in the conservative website Free Republic. See a copy saved here: http://archive.is/Qn6Iq

I had been publishing my articles on Free Republic since 2008, and only now I saw that they are partners with Cliff Kincaid.

Free Republic says that they advocate FREE SPEECH from a conservative viewpoint, but they killed the free speech of a Brazilian conservative writer who used no dirty language [the way Olavo de Carvalho does, for example, as described here – Don] and no personal attack to talk about Kincaid and his ideas.

Julio Severo”

I told Julio his article on Kincaid was still up at the Free Republic archives and that there were a lot of comments, all agreeing with him and mostly mocking Kincaid.

He responded:

“They banned me yesterday, immediately after I published about Kincaid. I called them [on the phone] because they called me a ‘troll,’ but I explained that I am not a troll and that I am a Brazilian writer, but they did not care. They only answered to me “GOOD BYE!” and hung up the telephone.

According to wikipedia, Richard Mellon Scaife, who gave Kincaid’s AIM $2 million, was affiliated with the Center for Strategic International Studies (CSIS), aptly described as Neoconservative and having on its board such notable Neocons as Henry Kissinger and Zbigniew Brzezinski. One of its board members is or was Carla Anderson, listed as the Chairwoman of the CFR – the New World Order flagship that wants all borders eliminated ASAP.

Oh, and Scaife also funded WND. Are you connecting the dots?

So Kincaid can pretend to be conservative, but the Neocon label is stuck to him like glue.

Below is my spoof on Kincaid’s silly comments on Donald Trump, suggesting Trump has some sort of sinister relationship with the Kremlin:

No WONDER Donald Trump is being nice to Putin. He sinisterly wants to build a hotel in Moscow.

Another building contractor running for president just so he can get a contract in Moscow. Why do they keep doing this?

I don’t know about you but I am very disappointed.

After this revealing article by the gifted researcher Cliff Kincaid, we now KNOW that Trump will be sinisterly trading away all of the Pentagon’s top secret secrets in exchange for the sinister Moscow Trump Tower contract, don’t we?

What’s that you say? Guccifer ALREADY gave away our top secret secrets to Russia?

Oh, ok. Never mind.

Just the same, I really thought Donald Trump wanted to make America great again. But now it looks like he only has sinister plans to make Russian tourism great. Again…?

Mr. Kincaid is a GENIUS to have figured this sinister intrigue all out.

Now what does America do?

Wait, you say if Trump builds the Moscow hotel, that would bring money into the US instead of the other way around?

Oh, ok. Never mind.

But here is what Cliffy’s article also suggests, and boy you tell me this is not sinister: The article suggests, I think, that Trump is angling for Putin’s job. He no doubt has sinister plans to become the president of Russia so that, as a prestigious representative of not one but TWO world powers, he can build Trump Towers all over the world, including North Korea (I bet that’s the main target and Cliffy would no doubt agree)! Or at the very least, he could become the chief bellhop at Trump Tower Moscow.

At the very sinister least!

Cliffy’s message to America: Vote for Hillary!

Don Hank

PS: I know some of you are wondering why I would devote any time to this stuff (like I did here – which is why Cliffy is not very fond of me). However, I learned long ago that reading Neocon writings is therapeutic. Dealing in real world issues can be depressing and stressful. This is my way of escaping. Thank you, Cliffy!

Yes, Folks, some lame-brained billionaire paid Cliff $2 million to share this kind of “insight” with the world.

Stratfor, a web site that purports to be a tool for strategic forecasting, generally presents a viewpoint and focus that have been identified as Neoconservative and pro-Establishment. Back in 2014, I commented here on Stratfor when I noticed that some of my friends had mistaken it for a reliable information source instead of the propaganda tool that it actually is. Since the Pentagon and State Department are apparently the target clients, the reporting a part of the strategy itself, with a view to influencing rather than informing. This makes Stratfor part of the msm and the Establishment, which Americans increasingly, justifiably, mistrust.

Stratfor’s latest effort, titled “Those who are (and are not) sheltered from the Panama Papers,” looks on the surface to be an objective overview of the different world leaders who were reportedly “exposed” in the Panama Papers.

Almost as soon as the Panama Papers “scandal” broke, I immediately realized that this was timed by the global elites to embarrass Putin so that he would get the minimum amount of credit for routing ISIS in their important Syrian strongholds. He wasn’t supposed to be there but here he was making the Pentagon and State Department look like the phonies they were. Anyone with half a brain knew all along that the elites were only pretending to fight ISIS, which was, after all, birthed and nourished as a joint venture between Washington and Riyadh, as revealed here

and here, for example, as well as in scores of other venues. It’s never been a secret for anyone who knows how to use Google. In response, I wrote this analysis on April 4.

Other keen analysts also saw through the scheme, eg, as expressed in this commentary. By now anyone who can read can easily see that the Panama Papers report is a scam. In fact, none of the reports on this topic even state that the law firm of Mossack and Fonseca has ever done anything illegal. Offshore accounts have been around forever and no one has ever seriously tried before to make the case that they are illegal. Until now. Because the elites think they have caught a big fish in their dragnet and can bring down the regime of the man who dared to protect the Christians and minorities in Syria.

I saw through Stratfor’s little game immediately when I started scanning his article and I wrote the following to him by clicking on the link he helpfully provided for that purpose.
My response to his article:

Dear Stratfor,

You dedicate 5 paragraphs to Russia, more than any other region or country. Yet your story on Putin is the only one on a national leader in which neither the leader himself nor his family was involved in offshore dealings. I think this is part of the Western spin that Russians are complaining about [the article had mentioned this—Don]. Further, offshore companies are not illegal and do not necessarily imply corruption on the part of people who use them. However, how could you blame a Russian leader for hiding funds from US scrutiny? Several Russian nationals’ bank accounts were seized by the US government in response to the Crimeans’ free choice to accede to Russia, and not one of these Russian depositors was found guilty of any wrongdoing. The illegal act was perpetrated not by the Russian nationals but by the US Justice Department. The US is becoming increasingly arbitrary in seizing and freezing other people’s money and is focused on Russia because that country refuses to kowtow to Washington. BTW, I see that Stratfor is a corporation, whereas it is really owned and operated essentially only by one man, you. Aren’t corporations often used to hide income?

BTW, I bet most of my readers have heard that Putin is sitting on at least a $40 billion fortune. This myth is masterfully put to rest by Alexander Mercouris, who writes (all emphasis mine):

The first time I heard allegations that Putin was a billionaire was in 2006 when they were made by an individual called Stanislav Belkovsky.

Belkovsky was an associate of the exiled Russian oligarch Boris Berezovsky. He was one of Russia’s original “political technologists” (ie. spin-doctors) whose heyday was in the 1990s. Belkovsky was also the first person to put a figure on Putin’s billions. He said Putin was worth $40 billion and was the richest man in Europe.

Belkovsky has at various times put Putin’s wealth even higher. On occasion he has put it as high as $70 billion and occasionally figures as high as $200 billion get quoted.

The figure of $40 billion however appears to have stuck and this is the most commonly cited figure for Putin’s wealth amongst those who believe the allegations against him are true.

Belkovsky’s claims centred on a company called Gunvor, a major international commodities trader dealing mainly in oil products which is registered in Switzerland.

Belkovsky claimed that Putin owned a large share of Gunvor and that Gennady Timchenko – a Russian businessman who was one of Gunvor’s co-founders and co-owners – was in reality Putin’s front man.

This claim is nonsense.

Mercouris then says that the US Treasury started to regurgitate this lie and use it against Putin and other prominent Russians. Later, he says that The Economist, a notorious anti-Russian rag with a glossy reputation that it does not deserve, inserted this myth in the pages of one of its editions. The article goes on:

In 2009 the allegations that Putin owned an interest in Gunvor became the subject of a libel action between Gunvor and The Economist which in an article it published in November 2008 appeared to lend weight to Belkovsky’s allegations.

The libel action ending with The Economistpublishing an apology and retraction in which it admitted that Putin has no interest in Gunvor. The Economist’s statement of retractionreads as follows:

“In a section of our special report on Russia entitled “Grease my palm” (29 November 2008) we referred to Gunvor and its co-founder, Gennady Timchenko.

We are happy to make it clear that when we referred to the “new corruption” in today’s Russia, we did not intend to suggest that either Gunvor or Mr Timchenko obtained their Russian oil business as a result of payment by them of bribes or like corrupt inducements.

Rosneft sells only 30-40% of its oil through Gunvor rather than the “bulk” of Rosneft’s oil (as we described it).

We accept Gunvor’s assurances that neither Vladimir Putin nor other senior Russian political figures have any ownership interest in Gunvor. We regret if any contrary impression was given.”

Mercouris goes on to report that this libel suit did not put an end to the $40 billion myth and that both the US government and the Neocon press continued to perpetuate it. The article is full of details on other anti-Russian myths that were similarly discredited but continue to circulate because of the disgraceful disdain that Western elites have for the truth.

The Jerusalem Post recently ran a columncommemorating the expulsion of Jews from Poland in March of 1968 in the regime of Wladyslaw Gomulka.

The Jews in communist Poland in 1968 were seen as sympathetic to Israel’s gains in the 6 Day War of 1967, by which Israel seized considerable land, including the Syrian Golan Heights and this angered the communist regime, leading to said expulsion of Jews.

Issues surrounding Israel are always delicate at best, particularly this Six Day War. Note that current Syrian president Bashar Al-Assad’s father Hafez was not yet the leader of Syria at the time of the war, but did side with Russia, which helps explain the Neocon hatred of Bashar Al-Assad today. On the other side of the ledger, Bashar Al-Assad, while still an opponent of Israel due to the loss of territory in the 1967 war, is a stalwart protector of Syrian Christians and other minorities.

Further, in 1994, at President Clinton’s persuasion, his father Hafez had adopted a conciliatory stance toward Israel. Yet when Bashar tried in 2007 to hold peace talks with Israel, the Bush administration took an inexplicable hardline approach. Likewise, Israel rebuffed him with surprising harshness as described here.

QUOTE:

“Attempting once again to break the impasse, Syria’s ambassador to the United States called for talks to achieve a full peace agreement with Israel in late July 2008. “We desire to recognize each other and end the state of war,” Imad Mustafa said in remarks broadcast on Israeli army radio. “Here is then a grand thing on offer. Let us sit together, let us make peace, let us end once and for all the state of war.”

Three days later, Israel responded by sending a team of commandos into Syria to assassinate a Syrian general as he held a dinner party at his home on the coast.”

The first paragraph of the above quote is confirmed here, but this source fills in a missing key fact: the Syrians were offering peace in exchange for return of the Golan Heights to Syria.

The last paragraph of this quoted portion is confirmed by no less than the Times of Israel here.

(Footnote: This bizarre behavior becomes understandable only in light of the US’s petrodollar agreement with the Saudis, by which the US became a de facto mercenary force for Saudi Arabia in exchange for the latter’s propping up the US dollar. By virtue of its economic and security dependence on the US, Israel is also bound to the same terms, creating a de facto US-Israel-Saudi axis. The Saudis’ Wahhabi sect of Sunni will not tolerate any non-Sunni or secular leader in the Middle East and has enlisted US aid in ousting all such leaders since the mid-60s. Thus you will recall that the attackers on September 11, 2001 were almost all Saudis, who belonged to Al-Qaeda, a Saudi-founded and funded terror group. Yet GW Bush completely ignored these facts and gave the Saudis a pass, apparently believing the US public would never figure out the motivation behind his actions. Be sure your sin will find you out… Numbers 32:23).

Later, in the 70s, Russia staged a similar anti-Jewish purge. These events have led some to consider Russia (and to a lesser extent, Poland) to be anti-Jewish. Yet Putin has traveled to Israel and come back with glowing reports of a prosperous and friendly country. He not only apparently has his own personal positive feelings toward Israel but also knows that Russian Christians consider Israel to be the Holy Land that gave them the Bible and Jesus. Unlike Western leaders, Putin honors the culture and religion of his people. Despite propaganda to the contrary, Christians – whether American or Russian – are the most Israel-friendly group in the world. Putin has also negotiated extensively with Netanyahu, who seems to understand Russia’s potential role as an ally and protector, even as it judiciously maintains a precarious balance between Israel and Hezbollah in Syria.

I was in Poland in the early 70s and heard nothing about this purge. In fact I met Jewish people with important posts in the Polish government.

The point is that it was not the Russian or Polish people who spawned the anti-Jewish sentiment that boiled over in Poland in 1968 and in Russia in the 70s. It was the communist government.

While there are still ultranationalist Russian groups trying to stir up anti-Semitic sentiment, Putin has wisely charted a course that circumvents, and where possible, suppresses these groups. (I watch or read almost all of Putin’s press conferences and speeches and can confirm that no audience member ever asks Putin any anti-Semitic question. It is clear to me that he would severely reprimand anyone who dared to express anti-Semitic views.)

The irony of it all is that the Neocons in the West are trying to minimize, smear and eventually overthrow Putin simply because he will not kowtow to them. Yet they must realize that, should Putin leave office, a real hardline warmonger could come along and replace him. One of the main complaints among the Russians is that Putin is too soft on the West but that is because his is a 100% diplomatic style. I think Putin is by far the smartest statesman the world has seen in a long time, perhaps ever.

Thus the Neocons are on a reckless, potentially suicidal course that could end in WW III, a nuclear one at that.

Donald Trump is the only candidate who does not talk like a warmonger. Ironically, despite all the propaganda to the contrary, the world is probably safer with a Trump presidency.

Today’s situation in the Middle East is very confusing to the uninitiated because US policy is secretly based on a decivilizing and disordering strategy that, to survive, must masquerade as being beneficial to all and designed to bring peace and justice. A major challenge for deceitful policy makers. For example, Obama originally had decided not to send arms and troops to the Syrian “rebels,” but when he saw the Russians bombing rebel bases, he decided to send more troops and arms (perhaps to appease the Neocons or perhaps because he has become one), as reported here.

A few months ago Ted Cruz addressed a group of Syrian Christians living in the US. Like many naive Americans, he assumed that the Middle East Jews and Christians share the same plight and therefore sympathize with each other. However, the Christian-killing terrorists in Syria have the moral support of many Israelis and the Israeli government because these terrorists are, for now, also opposed to Hezbollah and Iran, which the Israelis see as enemies. This complexity is overwhelming for most Westerners because the pertinent dots are never connected in our media.

The ingenuous Cruz was surprised at these Christians’ hostile response when before this crowd of Syrian Christians, he repeated the shibboleth “I stand with Israel,” indicating that, like nearly all US politicians, he hasn’t a clue as to Syrian sentiments and the reality there. (Ben Carson, unlike Trump, also wants to ratchet up the cold war).

To state this reality as simply as possible, the Shiites (the Iranian people and the Syrian government–supported by Russia) are perceived as enemies of Israel while the Sunnis (essentially the Saudis, Gulf states and Turkey), who hate the Shia, are perceived as allies.

This unintentionally pits US supporters of Syrian Christians against Israel in the sense that to support these Christians, one naturally supports Russia’s efforts to defeat ISIS and the rebels, but Israel perceives Russia as a threat because she is defeating their Sunni “allies” in ISIS. Thus, when Israelis hear Americans sympathizing with the Syrian Christians, many of them tend to get nervous. On the other hand, US Christians and others who mouth the slogan “I stand for Israel” make Syrians nervous because this suggests that the person who says this is seen as a threat to the Syrian Christians and other minorities.

Thus far, geopolitically illiterate Western politicians (the vast majority) and by far the majority of US analysts, seem to think that not only are Sunnis and Shia irreconcilable, but that in the outside chance they could be brought together, their newfound unity could threaten US interests.

Yet they also perceive perpetual war to be in the US interest, a proposition that is counterintuitive and morally untenable. I have tried to explain here how this absurd and dangerous idea came about and why it has been perpetuated for a half-century with almost no opposition in politics and media.

So how can both sides be brought together?

Putin is an unrivaled statesman who obviously wants to do unite these enemies of long standing. He recognizes that the US-aggravated rivalry between the Sunnis and Israel on the one hand and the Shia and Russia on the other is untenable in the long run and will lead to war. He is clearly trying to defuse the tension nurtured by the US. While attacking the Syrian terrorists who have the tacit support of Israel, he has shown Israel his support by meeting with and speaking with Netanyahu and by agreeing with the latter to involve Russia in the extraction of the Leviathan gas deposit, part of which is claimed by Israel. This tacitly implies several important things:

1—Russia accepts Israel’s existence as a nation

2—Russia agrees with Israel’s claim to its share of Leviathan even though Israel has stretched international law by extending its waters from 12 miles to 200 miles to include the relevant part of the deposit.

3—Russia will not allow encroachment on this deposit during its extraction and will protect any portions of the pipeline that cross Israeli territory.

It is a virtual military protection agreement for Israel. Further, none of this will come as a surprise for Russia watchers of the non-Neocon variety because Putin had visited Israel years ago and gave a press conference relating to this trip in which his respect for the Jews and the people of all faiths is reflected. This video of the conference best illustrates the fact that Putin is by his very disposition a true uniter of peoples and a man of good will.

It was only a matter of time before Israel’s tenuous support of the Sunni terrorists would be discovered and would therefore backfire mightily.

The US and Israel were playing with fire by cultivating Sunni Saudis and, by extension, the Saudis’ pets in ISIS,as their main allies (with the US all the while pretending to fight ISIS for cosmetic purposes). They had set a trap for themselves that has now been sprung by Russia.

Russia is now the only country in the world that intends to bring the Sunni world – and its allies Israel and the US – and the Shia world – ie, the Iranian people and Syrian government – together as clearly suggested by this report showing that in September, Putin either spoke by phone or met with not only the Shia leaders of Iran and Syria but also their supposed arch enemies the leaders of the Sunni countries Palestine, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Jordan, and most amazingly, Israel. This convergence of the Middle East in Moscow represented nothing short of an epoch making plate shift but went almost completely unreported in the West, a benighted region which still seeks answers solely in policies that divide the Middle East and make it more barbaric, supposedly to benefit US interests but in fact to no one’s benefit.

After years and years of relentless brainwashing, the idea of a relatively peaceful Middle East is now alien to Americans, most of whom would scoff at the idea.

Putin, however, understands the commonality of these seemingly divergent peoples (if only based on economic expediency) and his effort to unite all of their leaders is by far the most ingenious, monumental and momentous peace effort ever attempted in the Middle East. Yet no one, not even the brightest and best of geopolitical analysts, seems to have noticed. They are too busy taking sides in an effort to prop up a falling empire.

Some will say that my analysis is weighted in favor of our one-time enemy Russia. Yet what I have shown suggests a happier ending for the US than most would admit to.

Putin continues to refer to the US as a partner, and if only for economic reasons, he is deadly serious about this.

Putin knows that an economically failed US does not favor Russia or its Eurasian partners, all of whom are seeking the greatest prosperity for all, if for no other reason than to benefit from trade with us. After all, what is the percentage in trading with poor countries?

This came in since I wrote the above and it substantiates my commentary:

Neocons shriek that the Shiite Assad is evil and the Neocon Obama insists that anyone messing with his Sunni pets in ISIS in Syria is “upsetting the balance” in the region. (Neocons described here).

But what balance?

The balance in the entire Muslim world had been upset since 632 AD, with Sunnis, the overwhelming majority, lording it over the less-radical Shiites. Thus of these 2 branches, Sunnis are by far the more violent and intolerant. Only Sunnis currently invade other countries (with US assistance) and kill non-believers such as Christians. Backed up by the compliant media, the Neocon Ministry of Propaganda, keeps feeding us the line that all Muslims are equally evil but that the Saudis (whose proxies ISIS, al Qaeda, al Nusra, and the McCain-funded “rebels” etc, keep slitting Christian throats) are necessary to American freedom.

As a quick reference, note that there are 600 Christian churches in Shiite Iran but none in Saudi Arabia (not saying, of course, that Iranian sharia law courts are in line with Western rules of niceness).

So if Russia and its Shiite allies Syria and Iran succeed in upsetting the “balance,” which currently gives the more evil of the two Islams enormous power over the less evil, then how is that a bad thing?

Without the Shia-Sunni schism in 632, there might well be little or no war in the Arab world. But in 1973 the US signed a secret pact with the Saudis, who are Sunni, and worse, are of the Wahhabi sect, arguably the most violent and destructive ideology in the world, whereby the US agreed to support them militarily in exchange for their propping up the falling dollar. Supposedly, the pact was only intended to protect the Saudi royals and the oil fields, but yet every conflict fought by the US military in the Muslim world since then has benefited not the security of the Saudis but the spread of their violent and repressive religion. Actions speak louder than words on paper. Of course, this was cloaked in patriotic language by the presidents and state department — nonsense like “bringing them democracy” or “freedom”. But the answer to the question cui bono was invariably: Sunni (Wahhabist) Islam, the religion behind ISIS, Al Qaeda and the Taliban.

The US military had become a de facto mercenary force bought and paid for by Saudi Arabia.

The salient example of how the US actually supported Sunni Islam is Kosovo, where it invented a charge of “genocide” against a Christian country, Serbia, and went to a war that resulted in the creation of a Sunni Muslim state from a region with Christian roots going back centuries. (Read the “bloody truth” about Kosovo here: http://www.salon.com/1999/12/14/kosovo_11/.)

This is complicated by the fact that many Kosovars converted to Catholicism years ago, although Catholics and Orthodox have been at odds since the East-West schism in 1054. This puts Russia at odds with mainstream Western politicians in two ways:

1—Russia is Orthodox, like the Serbs and the Middle East Christians, which it supports.

2—Russia is allied with the Shiites in Iran and Syria.

That makes the Russians underdogs in two ways, and being Americans, we normally support the underdog. But the problem has been that Americans are unaware of these details because we know little history and little about the cultures of the countries that Washington seeks to control. I keep hearing from my readers that little details are unimportant.

But details are pieces of a puzzle. By discarding some pieces that appear useless when we first start assembling the puzzle, we make it impossible to insert those pieces later when we see how they fit into the whole.

When anyone expresses doubts as to the wisdom of demonizing Russia and its allies Iran and Syria, the sly Neocons invariably remind their zombie followers that “all Muslims are evil,” thereby sanctioning the killing of Iranians and Syrians. Yet they are strangely silent with regard to the Saudis and their support of the world’s most dangerous terror groups by far. Ignoring the details of Middle East culture – the missing puzzle pieces, most Americans are impotent to oppose this fallacy.

Here is how the deception works.

When Neocons discuss Iran, for example, “all Muslims are evil.” But when discussing the Saudis, they have little or nothing to say. So the real trouble makers in the Muslim world get an invisible pass while their opponents, who are now fighting ISIS, are labeled as evil and Joe Sixpack goes along with the meme. As a result, the people and their keepers perpetuate the age-old imbalance among Muslims, but this imbalance is portrayed by sly US politicians and the media as a “balance,” which may not be upset for fear of some undefined consequence.

The going narrative is full of holes. But they know that if you know the truth, you can free yourselves of their grip, help end the US’s pro-Sunni wars around the globe and help heal the Arab world and the West. As long as you believe this pernicious myth that “all Muslims are equal,” you can think that killing Muslims anywhere is a benefit to the West, giving the Neocons in Washington carte blanche to choose whichever branch of Islam to attack while granting the other – the real trouble maker – immunity. In fact, these unbalanced and one-side wars that ultimately benefit terror drive people out of their homelands and to Europe and the US, creating still more problems and solving none.

But Russians know the truth about history and culture and that is why ISIS is finally being challenged over the protests of the Western elitists desperate to save the dollar at the expense of peace in a perpetual blood-for-dollars strategy.

Jesus said: ye shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free.

Want to be finally free?

You can start by learning the truth about the petrodollar deception, for example, by reading this and about the Sunni-Shia divide by reading

George Friedman, CEO of Stratfor, seems to be following the lead of other prominent Neocon elites. Recently, Kissinger and Soros both warned against taunting the Russian bear or escalating the Ukraine conflict. This was remarkable for them, because they had always generally supported, at least by their actions and words, the Wolfowitz doctrine of encircling Russia, and indeed, Soros even admitted that one of his foundations had aided in the Maidan coup, as I pointed out here.

Now comes George Friedman and joins them in backtracking, reluctantly admitting here that maybe attacking the Russian ally Iran was never such a brilliant idea. He says the problem with this idea is that the plan might fail and thereby strengthen the Iranian position while weakening Israel’s position. No kidding.

I wrote to George via his Stratfor site and asked why no one ever mentions Daniel Greenfield’s famous speech on the MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) principle, which that author skillfully demonstrates would effectively prevent a nuclear power (he doesn’t explicitly mention Iran) from attacking another. Israel is known to possess a nuclear arsenal.

I had mentioned Greenfield’s comments on MAD here in the context of the rush to war against Iran – which, nota bene, even the Israeli military leaders knew to be an unnecessarily risky idea.

So when you say “I stand with Israel,” are you saying you stand with these wise military leaders who oppose war with Iran or with the minority who want to take that needless risk?

See the problem with that slogan?

Below is my response to George:

Thank you for this report.

I find it intriguing that no commentator ever mentions, in the context of Israel vs Iran, Daniel Greenfield’s speech on the MAD principle, which prevents nuclear powers from attacking each other. The Israeli government is aware of Greenfield’s writings and certainly, many have read this speech and know this theory makes common sense. Since it is known that Israel and the US are nuclear powers and that neither would sit back and let Iran attack Israel, Iran, in the real world, would never nuke Israel. Further, any nuclear explosion in Israel would kill and harm millions of Palestinians and other Arab neighbors. The whole world would turn against Iran and that would end Iran’s ability to ever trade with any country again. It would, in a word, be suicide. In other words, the war hawks in Israel are directing an inordinate and unjustified amount of time and energy at preventing an impossibility.

It is obvious to me that the only reason Israeli war hawks keep beating the drums in Iran’s direction is that they want to stay on the good side of the Saudis, who they perceive as having the power to crush them via their protégés like ISIS.

Why not address this side of the story some time? It would not hurt your credibility and would almost certainly boost your readership.

END OF LETTER

When you see the elites distancing themselves from their past strongly held positions, it’s not because they had a change of heart or “saw the light.” It’s because an external force or forces have made it impossible to sustain those positions and they woke up to this reality.

Despite all the setbacks that Eurasia (mostly Russia and China) have suffered (such as the recent collapse of the Chinese stock market), this region has so far avoided, for the most part, the extravagance of Western Keynesianism – unbridled money printing, borrowing more than they can ever pay down or back to pay for reckless spending – and despite the “socialist” tag, neither of them spends, as a percentage of GDP, even a fraction of what Western “developed” countries spend on welfare or social programs. The Neocons haven’t a leg to stand on, and now the upper echelons aren’t in fact standing.

Further, Eurasia has managed to demonstrate the vast potential of its economic power and prestige, for example, via the new investment bank, the AIIB, to most of our “allies,” over 50 of which became founding members, as I pointed out here.

On top of that, Russia and China have been doing impressive joint military exercises lately, demonstrating not only that they possess the hardware to back down any opponent, but that they are a team. I am amused at analysts who discuss Russian military capability in great detail without ever mentioning that there is in fact no such thing as the “Russian” military. In today’s world, there is only a joint Russian-Chinese military that we must contend with – and get along with, like it or not. And while there are still US “allies,” most are only reluctant and leaning away from the constant wars made in USA.

I say all that to remind you of why the elites, like Soros, Kissinger and Friedman, are changing their tune. They simply have no choice. Reality is facing them like a brick wall, foiling their schemes of world dominance. I say this cautiously, but it would seem that Neoconservatism is dead for all practical purposes.

The elites, who had everything to lose, were the first to notice the tectonic plate shift in geopolitics.